Ninety Percent of a Woman's Eggs Gone By 30

Should Women Hold Out for a Partner or Just Get Pregnant?

Thirty may seem like the new 20, but not when it comes to a woman's fertility. According to new research, the odds are stacked against women who hold out to have children, particularly those who wait until they are in their 30s and 40s. One report said:

The study published by the University of St. Andrews and Edinburgh University in Scotland found that women have lost 90 percent of their eggs by the time they are 30 years old, and only have about 3 percent remaining by the time they are 40.

Females are born with all of the eggs they will ever have, so Dr. Marie Savard, GMA's medical contributor, advises women to take good care of them by not smoking and staying fit. Many women panic about missing the opportunity to be a mother, but raising children is not a whim decision or easy to do alone. If a woman's clock is ticking, do you think she should go ahead and get pregnant or hold out for a partner?

By signing up, I agree to the Terms and to receive emails from POPSUGAR.

5 years

I am 38, had sexvtwice.. and got pregnant.. so the study is ridiculous... every woman is different..

5 years

Run for the hills. I am getting old. I am going to be 31 in a month and no child. So here's my plan. First available man I am going to jump on like no tommorrow and hope for the best. I want a baby.

5 years

This doesn't make sense to me. If this is true why do I know so many women in their 30's and 40's who get pregnant by accident and why do most women I know start having their children in their 30's with absolutely no problem doing so? My guess is this information is as accurate as they believe.

5 years

Thank you Diamond and Anonymous for the interesting info and stats.

5 years

Book name got cut. It's "Ready: Why Women Are Embracing the New Later Motherhood" (Basic Books, 2008)

Name of book got cut --- it's "Ready: Why Women Are Embracing the New Later Motherhood" (Basic Books, 2008)

5 years

What the synopsis of this leaves out is that the comparison (90% of eggs lost) is to the female fetus 20 weeks after conception, which has hundreds of thousands or even millions of eggs. Though the report implies that low egg reserve means a low fertility rate, a closer look at the data makes clear that THERE IS NO LINK.
The abstract only cites figures for 30- and 40-year-olds (12% and 3%, respectively), but according to the full study, 25-year-olds have 22%, 20-year-olds a mere 37%, 15-year-olds only 52%, 10-year-olds only 70% and 5-year-olds about 87%.
What scare tactic stories like this one don't tell you is what the actual fertility rates for women of all ages are --- and as some of the comments above indicate, most women are fertile through their late 30s, unless they already have a known endocrinal disorder (not related to age).
This kind of data is hard to get because doctors can’t mandate that a big group of people have unprotected sex constantly for the sake of an experiment. But the one rigorous study on this, done in the 50s, indicates that only 4% of women are infertile at 29: so apparently 12% IS ALL YOU NEED.
I wrote a book on this topic called , which looks at the dynamics of fertility anxiety in our culture, as part of its exploration of the personal and social effects of the global trend among women to delay families since the arrival of hormonal birth control.
Since fertility delay (use of birth control) connects directly to women's progress up career ladders - into positions where they can change public policy to be more supportive of families, one group with an interest in pushing women into earlier motherhood would be a business culture bent on maintaining women as a cheap labor force. No matter that that cheapness does not serve the big picture needs of the new economy for more not fewer educated workers.
It does seem to be the case that the only news we hear on this front is bad news -- which is bad news for women and men trying to make informed decisions about their families. The issues are complex - there's no one answer for everybody, but we do need real data.

"who is trying to scare anyone into having babies?!"
Good question! But right wing newspapers, like Britain's Daily Mail routinely run stories every day that warn against having babies too late, being a working mother etc. One wonders why it's in their interests to set this agenda when most of their readers are female, or why it's a good idea for them to run women hating pieces documenting women's weight gain and loss. But they still do. I guess a lot of women like to read bad news.

5 years

This is hardly a scare tactic...who is trying to scare anyone into having babies?! It also is not the only study that has been done on this topic. It just happens to be the only study mentioned in this article. If you do any research on the topic, women are born with a certain amount of immature eggs or follicles, with only 300-400 ever developing into mature eggs. If you lose one of these eggs every time you menstruate, this accumulates to a majority of the mature eggs gone by 30. If you start menstruating when you are 13, have 12 periods a year, by the time you are 30 you will have lost approx. 204 eggs. This plainly translates into diminished chances in your lifetime of getting pregnant. Obviously there are still eggs left and one can still easily get pregnant, but it isn't pushing an age forward. It makes sense if it is easier before 35, because on average you still have 150 eggs left after 30, and those will also disappear as you menstruate. And of course this isn't the case for every woman...these are average statistics.
I agree with those of you stating that a woman should have a child when ready. I have found through teaching for many years that children are usually a direct reflection of their parents' love and parenting skills. There is no point having a child if you can't take care of him/her properly.
This diminishing egg count may be something to consider if you have options...if not, then wait! There are still more perfectly good eggs, just not as many.

There's a likelihood that people who struggled in their late 20s may very well have struggled in their early 20s or even late teens. Not everyone finds it easy to conceive, and there are lots of very young couples struggling with infertility. It is not just about running out of eggs! To tell women oh, you're 30, you only have 10% of your eggs left, and those are unhealthy eggs, is also NOT a realistic representation of the state of MOST women's fertility age 30. A huge proportion of the women who get naturally pregnant every day are in their 30s. We know it is easier to get pregnant before the age of 35. To push that forward to 30? I think that's unnecessary. As people have been saying, making a baby should be about love, not panic.

This is not the only study that has been done on this and I do think that nowdays women have this false sense of having a lot of time when it comes to having a baby. I am not saying it is impossble, but please be realistic. I know peope who have struggled i their late 20's already and a lot who struggled with getting pregnant in their early and late 30's. My life situation has made it possible for me to get pregnant in my late 20's, but this was good timing for me and I do understand that it might not be this way for everyone.
But people have to be a little bit more realistic and not ignore the facts of life or possibly pay thousands of dollars for treatments later on, bc they think they have so much time.

Don't ever have a baby out of panic. That is the wrong reason to do it. I think the whole bio clock ticking crap should be done away with. It gives women an unneeded fear. What you should do is go by your body, your readiness and your ability. Leave this "oh no your eggs!" junk out of it.

Women should do what they want and not let stupid studies rush them into any life changing decisions in fear of their "biological clock". There is more to life than birthing babies before you're 30 and there is nothing wrong if you do.
Having being raised by a single mother I know I wouldn't make the choice to have a baby alone. Raising children is hard and a lot more difficult on your own.

I can't see why anyone would willingly have a baby alone. And this is just one study.
Infertility treatment is just making women paranoid lately. Chemicals in furniture are causing infertility? Women who ride in cars without seatbelts are going to have a hard time getting pregnant? Seriously?

I just turned 26, and this article is scary even for me to read! I'm no where near marriage, and may not be for quite some time. I think it would be a bit ridiculous to go out and get pregnant with no partner and no serious financial plan to take care of a baby. I hate these scare tactics.

5 years

I agree. If you want a baby, but just don't have the man/partner go for it. If you've got your own money and feel it's time to have a baby HAVE one.
If you're runnin' 'round like " Oh S#!T!! I'm outta eggs almost!!" Then no.
Then AGAIN as a woman in her 30's I do understand the panic. You don't want your time to run out. But we shouldn't let "research" panic us to the point where we aren't thinking clearly.
Jen

Depends on what the woman wants. I don't think I would ever want to have a child alone but I guess if i was getting close to 40 maybe I would consider it. I think plenty of women have no issues in their 30's though. Was this study actually conducted by the university or an invitro clinic.

My mother had me at my 38, my younger sister at 39. We both repeatedly were at the top of our class growing up, so I wouldn't count on any birth defects.
The world is overpopulated as it is, and then there's in vitro fertilization (which is just oh so wrong).
A woman shouldn't be so selfish as to view bringing another human being into this world as another check on her to do list before she dies. A baby should be created by a loving man and woman who plan on raising it together (if the woman can help it, sometimes things don't always go your way).

5 years

I do think the question at hand and the study should be separate posts.
Should a woman have a baby alone if she wants one and has the means to support them as a family? Sure.
Should a woman run out and become a single mom at 29 because one study says she's losing her eggs? No.

5 years

I think this is something that needs to be better studied, however, if it's you in the situation and you're in your 30's with no partner and desperately wanting to have a family, why not go for it if you have the financial means? It's something that as the individual needs to be seriously thought out because there's so many things to look at for both sides of the arguement, but I see no reason why a woman shouldn't have a child or children on her own if she wants.

5 years

Also, there's no way to know exactly how many eggs a woman has at birth or at puberty because it's not actually an egg. It's a follicle that matures into an ovum. Thousands of follicles are lost at each ovulation to develop a mature ovum.
And seriously ONE study?

This study is just scaring people. i read the comments in the article, and felt much better after. I'm just going to keep being healthy and stress free, and hope when I'm in my 30s, those 100k or so eggs I have left will be put to work

5 years

I agree, macneil. It's also commoon for women to get pregnant more easily once they pass 30. Stories like this send women into a panic.